Oct_29_2018_mmo_questions_responses_(002).doc

In regards to document W15QKN-18-R-0065_-_MMO.pdf

We would request clarification on the timing of the FAT testing and FAI samples. Are the FAI samples and complete FAT report due 90 days after contract award as per C.4.1.3.1? Or are these requirements due 90 days after the full rate production award. To ask in a different way, it seems the FAT plan, FAT report, and FAI samples on production units are due 90 days ACA, and then at 180 days ACA, 35 pre-production units are due. Is this accurate? If not, could further detail on the timing be provided?

Everything in section C.4 is in relation to after the full rate production option execution, not after initial contract award. FAT requirements are references the production option award, and the 35 pre-production units are due 90 days (not 180 days as in the contractor's question) after base contract award.

In regards to document Exhibit_B_AR-PD-191.pdf

3.5.1 -3.5.3 Accuracy

Is there a baseline analytical model or reference document? What method will be used to validate?

Accuracy will be measured via live fire testing, measured against a baseline that is fired under the same conditions and at the same time as the units under test.

3.5.2-3.5.2.3 Target acquisition time

Is there a baseline analytical model or a reference document? What method will be used to validate?

Target acquisition time will be measured via user-in-the-loop testing, where user engagement time data will be collected and measured against the baseline which will be tested under the same conditions at the same time as the units under test.

3.5.3.2 Allowable batteries.

The document cited “Power Sources Center of Excellence (PSCOE) Preferred Battery

List”, May 2014 is not available in the public domain can it be provided?

Is there a URL for it?

Battery list is included as an email attachment.

3.5.3.4.1 Low temperature battery life.

The requirement is fundamentally set by the battery chemistry and maybe more than 50%. Does the specification mean we can drop to 50% of Time requirement threshold of the 96 hours cited in 3.5.3.4? Is that what is being attempted to be defined?

See section 4 for more clarification on this requirement and how it is to be tested/verified. The operational temperatures are defined in the overarching low temperature requirement sections of the PD (ie 3.7.3.1)

3.5.3.5 Battery life indicator.

How accurate is the 15 minutes requirement. Most simple gauging of life will indicate end of battery life but to be that accurate would require a gauging technology that need more power than the source itself.

The tolerance on this requirement is +/- 10%

3.5.4.4 Parallax

What is the preferred distance for zero parallax?

We do not have a requirement for zero parallax, only what is indicated in the PD

3.6.7.7 Ports

Is there power available on the host weapon platform? If yes can details be shared?

At this time we are not planning to utilize vehicle power in the MMO 3.6.16.1.1, 3.6.16.2.1 Caps

The cap requirement appear to dictate a specific type of azimuth and elevation adjustment. The details seem to address preventing an unintentional shift of the aiming point of the device. We feel our products meet the requirement but do not implement the solution as dictated by the requirement. Will solutions other than the caps mentioned be acceptable?

This is in relation to the parent requirement of Boresighting. If the vendor does not meet a specific requirement, include a description of how they will meet the requirement or why they believe they do meet the requirement in the proposal as indicated in L/M.

3.6.16.1.2 Adjustment increment

The adjustment increment of our sights is 0.5 MOA in both azimuth and elevation. This provides greater precision in bore sighting than 0.25 mil increments. Is the 0.5 MOA adjustment increment acceptable, or must we provide a nominal adjustment increment of 0.25 mil?

This is a minimum requirement, more precise would be acceptable.

3.6.16.1.3 Adjustment range

The adjustment range of our standard sights is ± 60 MOA for both azimuth and elevation. Our experience has shown this to be a sufficient range for proper bore sighting. Is there any information that can be provided that would indicate that this range is insufficient for your application?

This is a user requirement based on standard bore sighting procedures and is a minimum requirement. As indicated in L&M if the proposed product does not meet the requirement, indicate in the proposal why it does not meet the PD requirement and either how it could be altered to meet the PD or why it is sufficient as is.

3.6.17.2.2 Etched and fill. ,3.6.17.2.3 Sandwich.

The requirements of the reticle appear to dictate a specific kind of reticle implementation. The details given appear to be done to address issues of back reflection of the reticle to target space (object space). We feel our products meet the requirement but do not implement the solution as dictated by the above specifications. The question is: Are we correct in our assumption? Will solutions other than the two mentioned be acceptable?

Solutions other than the two mentioned will not be acceptable in full rate production, however if the current product (ie the pre-production units) will not meet the PD requirements describe how it may be altered to meet these requirements in the future in the proposal.

3.7.6.4 EMP

What functions are considered to be mission critical?

Following environmental hardening testing, the MMO will be checked for cleanliness and optical quality, resolution, and parallax.

3.9 Adhesives

Mandates the use of adhesives compliant with MIL-PRF-13830. This excludes many adhesives commonly used in the optics industry for use on both glass to glass bonding, and on glass to metal bonding. This is due to the nature of how the specification identifies specific material types, mix ratios, mix viscosity, etc. Can alternate adhesives be used provided they have been proven on the product to survive and perform when exposed to the environments being requested?

If this requirement cannot be met this would need to be addressed in the proposal. There is no restriction as to the chemical makeup of the adhesives given the performance requirements are met.